"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

One of the things we must understand about the Left is the essentially totalitarian nature of their ambitions. There is no logical stopping point on the progressive road to the Utopia of Equality that they insist is always ahead of us, a destination never reached.

Grant all their demands today, and they will return tomorrow with a new list of demands. What do they want? More, always more.

The ruling cites memorable Supreme Court travesties — Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. U.S. — like so many mileposts on the Highway to Hell, and who can argue with such sophistry when it’s dressed up in costumes of legal precedent, bejeweled with a lot of emotional chatter about “loving, intimate and lasting relationships” and “sacred, personal choices”?

It’s not a matter of what people vote, it’s a matter of individual rights.

RS February 14th, 2014 @ 1:44 pm

Progressives are always very quick to scream “the ‘slippery slope’ is a fallacy!!!!111!!!!!.” That’s of course true, but only if there is a clearly defined and inviolate endpoint to the philosophical path. Progressives have never defined such an endpoint, which is why we had to deal with the #Free Kate dolts and why Pederasts and Pedophiles are coming out of the woodwork seeking “understanding.”

This gets back to point I tried to make in an earlier thread. The people who now scream about gay marriage destroying marriage and the family–which is no doubt correct–were nowhere to be found when society was contemplating no-fault divorce. This endgame became inevitable the moment society decided to stop vigorously protecting the foundations of its existence: Traditional Marriage, Parenthood and the Family. As history has shown, even the slightest attempt to weaken those institutions led to ever greater assaults.

RS February 14th, 2014 @ 1:46 pm

Your assertion assumes a fact not proven, towit that there is a “right” to engage in certain sexual behavior and to require society to approve and sanction it.

Socialism: Organized Evil February 14th, 2014 @ 1:51 pm

“Equality”, as sought by the worshipers of liberalism, is only possible at the lowest common denominator.

Socialism: Organized Evil February 14th, 2014 @ 1:54 pm

Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter 2:

—On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
—

The religion of liberalism isn’t that much different than the religion of communism.

Socialism: Organized Evil February 14th, 2014 @ 2:05 pm

According to CDC Surveillance statistics, sodomites account for about 70% of new HIV cases:

Most people did not understand the implications of no fault divorce. Ironically, that ball was started rolling by Ron Reagan as Kali Gov because of what his first wife did to him in divorcing him. It got really nasty. If he had been able to see what would come of it eventually, I doubt he would have signed that bill.

Matt_SE February 14th, 2014 @ 3:39 pm

Leftism is absurd, but conservative have their own hang-up: fetishism of “the Law.” Even unjust laws.
This only ends with the governed withdrawing their consent, i.e. civil disobedience.

Until we’re willing to do that, we will continue to be led around by the nose. Because the left will never stop.

Socialism: Organized Evil February 14th, 2014 @ 3:58 pm

Each of us must understand that the religion of liberalism/marxism/socialism/communism has three key objectives:

– Destruction of the family
– Destruction of private property
– Destruction of Christianity

Knowing our adversary is the first step to defeating our adversary.

Many thanks to TOM and everyone else in this perennial war.

SDN February 14th, 2014 @ 4:26 pm

And the Left’s response to “civil disobedience” is concentration camps/gulags. The only rights you have are the ones you are willing to kill for.

Judge Arenda Wright Allen, who issued this ruling, was appointed to the bench by Barack Obama.

If white people had voted in the same turnout percentage in 2012 that they did in 2004, Obama would not have been reelected and would not be appointing more judges today, despite the large minority/youth turnout.

Leftists are beginning to clamor for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire so Obama can appoint a young leftist to the Supreme Court while he still has Harry Reid controlling the Senate to confirm whoever he wants.

Elections matter.

Lightwave February 14th, 2014 @ 5:04 pm

Pretty soon thanks to judicial activism, everyone will be a member of a “protected class”.

Well, everyone but White, Christian men.

“And when everyone’s super…no one is.”

–Syndrome, The Incredibles

Zohydro February 14th, 2014 @ 6:32 pm

Would I be denounced to suggest that most of those “heterosexual” cases of HIV infection are likely acquired through precisely the same sorts of sexual behaviour in which the homosexuals acquired theirs?

Socialism: Organized Evil February 14th, 2014 @ 6:37 pm

IMO, we have an obligation to the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may make us feel initially.

Not only approve and sanction, but force it to be taught in the schools, practioners to have special rights and the practice to be forced upon our children. The heteropatriarchy is to be replaced with the homopatriarchy through enforcement of homonormative behaviors.
We are so doomed … time to rise!

NeoWayland February 15th, 2014 @ 7:03 am

Just to save time, let me say that people’s rights exist with or without society’s sanction or approval. At it’s most basic, the only reason a society or a nation should exist is to defend those rights. For the sake of argument, I’ll agree that one person’s rights stop when they infringe on another’s, but you and I won’t agree on what “infringe” means. You’ve already brought “society” in as a player, and I’ll tell you that it’s none of society’s business.

That is, unless you agree to always apply 90 days before having sex using only approved positions 1, 4, & 5. With a doctor’s signed certification, you might attempt position 7. With a letter from your minister and countersigned by your local Department of Intimacy, your might get a special wavier for position 3. You must wait for permission. No unauthorized sex now, society must sanction it. Oh, and remember that position 2 is strictly forbidden.

On the downlow of course, can’t let the marital partner know that juniors sex-ed homework has piqued interest in what the publik schools require as acceptable sexual behaviors (hint: NOT heterosexuality).

NeoWayland February 15th, 2014 @ 7:05 am

See, this is an issue when a religious rite (not right) is “approved” by government. People start believing that their religion should have the force of law backing it up and that their faith should always shape the law.

Then government changes the rules and definitions without consulting the religion. Government demands that religion complies with the new rules, no matter what. Now the law shapes the religion.

NeoWayland February 15th, 2014 @ 7:06 am

Illiterate, hmm?

History books at ten paces then.

NeoWayland February 15th, 2014 @ 7:08 am

I don’t think it should be taught in the public schools.

But I don’t think traditional marriage should be taught in the public schools either.

RS February 15th, 2014 @ 8:31 am

You argue in bad faith. The argument is not about what people do in private; it is about sanctioning gay “marriage.” Your response is typical. When one asks from where the “right” to a definition emanates, suddenly the discussion shifts to ludicrous examples of “permission.”

Zohydro February 15th, 2014 @ 8:45 am

Divorce in general, “no-fault” divorce specifically is morally wrong… I don’t believe in divorce… If society must have divorce, then it should be painfully difficult and rare—particularly when children are involved!

Zohydro February 15th, 2014 @ 9:12 am

Marriage isn’t a rite or a right! It is a social institution that transcends time, ideology, and culture… The “science is settled” on this one, mate!

Humans, whatever else we may be, are a preferentially and appropriately monogamous species…

Whether one is a Stone Age animist headhunter from Amazonia or an atheist pomosexual metrofag from Boston, it should be clear from biology and history that the foundation and perpetuation of any society is established only in the union of One Man and One Woman!

Again, the argument has nothing to do with behaviors, in which anyone is free to engage. The argument is about whether society is required to sanction those behaviors. Where is there a “right” to social sanction and approval as opposed to mere social indifference? You refuse to answer that question. Instead, you consistently attempt to change argument to something its not.

NeoWayland February 16th, 2014 @ 5:29 pm

With my very first post on this thread, I pointed out that 50 years ago a sizable part of American society refused to “sanction” interracial marriage.

As long as they are consenting adults, it’s none of society’s business. Just as you don’t care what a mosque in Chicago thinks about your relationships, or if T.D. Jakes approves of your shoes.

It’s not what society sanctions. It’s the freedom people have.

NeoWayland February 16th, 2014 @ 5:35 pm

There’s a quote that applies, and I wish “both” sides would take it to heart.

“Everybody has asked the question, ‘What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!”
— Frederick Douglass

Society should neither help nor hinder. Let people make their own choices and live with the consequences.

james james February 16th, 2014 @ 11:20 pm

only in a land where we are all free to live how we would like so many dont believe that… but you all agree that you should do and live how you want on your own land in your own home and you would not want anyone to tell you otherwise. how can you agree with this is you think that. i mean when you say things like this it only helps to build the bars to cage you will put yourself in. when you can tell one group how to live then it become okay for another group to tell you how to live as well. or when you say things like this if you all get what you want if gays were to be rounded up and blamed and punished for what you think is thier fault. when you find something you dont like about your new society they may label you gay and just sweep you away as well. to agree with this is to take one step closer to handing back your own personal freedom and opinion. seriously think about it can you really tell who is gay and who isnt? no you cannot all the time. and when people live and hide who they are and how they really want to be then there lies the real problem and when things can go really wrong. and i dont know in what school they teach anyone to be gay to think about all the people who are young and gay and feel like they have to be one way when they are not. that is what hurts. he married you (she married you) but really they dont love you like you think. but they feel like they had to do what people thought they should and then you are left holding a fucked up bag.

after reading a few of these i think that whoever started this is sad and mad at others alot for what they think someone else has.

when you die and go the heaven and you see someone there you didnt like in life or think should be there what will you do… get mad complain and leave?…..or will you just accpeted the shit and keep moving on.